Franchisor Price Fixing: What Does Leegin Really Mean for Franchising?
August 31, 2007
By now, everyone seriously involved in the practice of franchise law is aware of <i>Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.</i>, 2007 WL 1835892 (S. Ct. June 28, 2007). The Supreme Court in <i>Leegin</i> held that vertical resale price maintenance is no longer unlawful in and of itself. Although hailing the decision as overruling a nearly 100-year prohibition on minimum price fixing, the pundits writing in the wake of <i>Leegin</i> have nevertheless hedged their bets on just how revolutionary the decision is. Their constant mantra is this: <i>Leegin</i> does not open the door to unrestrained resale price maintenance, but rather changes the rules under which courts will evaluate sales agreements setting minimum prices. No longer will courts treat them as unlawful <i>per se</i>; they will now evaluate their legality under something called 'the rule of reason.' If a court (or jury) concludes that an agreement establishing a minimum price is an 'unreasonable restraint of trade,' then the supplier has violated the antitrust laws. If the threat of treble damages from such a finding isn't sobering enough, writers warn us that courts may interpret state 'baby Sherman Acts' as still making resale price maintenance unlawful <i>per se</i>, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says.
Movers & Shakers
August 31, 2007
News about lawyers and law firms in the product liability field.
Case Notes
August 31, 2007
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
Home Depot Faces Multiple Suits: Allegations of Health Hazards from Grout Sealer
August 31, 2007
When Gwinnett County, GA, resident James Flynn bought a spray can of grout sealer from his neighborhood Home Depot in July 2005, he could not have imagined that his purchase would land him in the hospital and cost him the use of a lung. However, Flynn's attorney, Frank Ilardi, said that when his client bought Tile Perfect Stand 'N Seal Spray-On Grout Sealer, its manufacturer had been fielding complaints for more than a month about potentially devastating effects associated with its use.
Deference to the FDA's Preamble
August 31, 2007
A cursory review of the conflicting decisions being rendered across the country reveals that courts are fairly split over the issue of federal pre-emption of failure-to-warn strict liability claims in pharmaceutical litigation. The FDA directly addressed the issue in the Preamble to the Final Rule ('Preamble') published Jan. 24, 2006.
Bucking the Tort Reform Trend? Manufacturer of Non-Asbestos Product Has Duty to Warn About Asbestos Dangers
August 31, 2007
Product liability plaintiffs are facing ever-growing barriers to filing suit in state and federal courts. Tort reformers have won significant victories at the state level, including restrictions on asbestos claims and caps on punitive damages. At the federal level, the Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') has allowed for easier removal of state class actions to federal courts. In addition to the impact of CAFA, a number of states have enacted legislation that makes it more difficult to file class actions in their courts. Several states also have initiated 'venue reform,' which limits the ability of out-of-state plaintiffs to file lawsuits in those states.
Practice Tip: Expert Testimony Quantifying Hedonic Damages
August 31, 2007
Few subjects in the staid world of economics generate as much controversy as expert testimony quantifying hedonic damages: tort damages that attempt to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of enjoyment of life. Countless articles in forensics literature debate whether monetary value placed on a statistical life applies to a specific plaintiff. This controversy has spilled over into the courtroom. While most jurisdictions allow recovery of some form of hedonic damages, the trend, especially in the post-<i>Daubert</i> era, has been to exclude expert testimony that purports to calculate the amount of those damages. This article examines the trend against expert testimony quantifying hedonic damages and notes recent decisions that indicate the trend may be curbing, especially in jurisdictions that have refused to adopt <i>Daubert</i>.
Building a Fire Wall: Missouri and New Jersey Hold the Line Against Plaintiffs' Efforts to Expand the Law of Public Nuisance
August 31, 2007
In its 2006 report on 'Judicial Hellholes',' the American Tort Reform Association ('ATRA') identified the plaintiff bar's aggressive use of public nuisance theories in product liability litigation as one of the key 'rising flames' that is threatening traditional judicial protections for defendants in the country's most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions. As ATRA explained, 'personal injury lawyers and some attorneys general have been trying to move public nuisance theory far beyond its traditional boundaries in order to avoid the well-defined strictures of products liability law.' American Tort Reform Association, <i>Judicial Hellholes 2006</i>, at 9. In so doing, they seek to tilt the playing field dramatically in their favor by writing out of the common law a plaintiff's obligation of establishing actual causation, proximate causation, and control.
Green Issues in Commercial Office Leases
August 30, 2007
Tenants are beginning to address green issues in leases for many reasons, including reduced operating costs over the term of the lease and increased productivity among employees. In addition to corporate green policies or shareholder green initiatives, cities and localities such as Washington, DC; Montgomery County, MD; and Boston have passed green legislation of various kinds. Other cities such as Kansas City, MO are considering similar legislation. Many public entities such as the state of California and the city of Chicago have required compliance with green standards for their public buildings and offices for some time. The difference today with the new green legislation being passed in Washington, DC; Montgomery County, MD; and Boston is that the private sector both for commercial and residential projects of a certain scale, not just the public sector, will be required to comply with green standards. This will be especially true if a private development is receiving taxpayer funds. It is very likely that lawyers, real estate brokers, contractors, and other real estate professionals may need to address green issues when looking at space options, reviewing a lease, and constructing leasehold improvements ' not only for a client but also for their own office space.
